U.S. Supreme Court ruling could end debate in Springfield

Justices might find sexual orientation is a protected class

Apr. 1, 2013

Written by

When the U.S. Supreme Court rules later this year on two cases related to gay marriage, it could have a direct impact on Springfield.

Although the court can rule a number of different ways, one possibility is that it will find that sexual orientation is a protected class, like race or sex. This would mean that discrimination against gay and lesbians is unconstitutional.

Here is where Springfield comes in.

Last year, City Council heard intense debate over a non-discrimination ordinance that would have banned discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

The council sent the issue to a task force that is still working on the issue.

If the Supreme Court finds that sexual orientation is a protected class, it could end the debate. Of course, City Council could still pass or reject a non-discrimination ordinance, but discrimination would already be unconstitutional.

The possibility of creating a protected class came up during Tuesday’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court, when the court heard a challenge to Proposition 8, a California law banning gay marriage in the state.

“Outside of the, outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a State using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other rational decision-making that the Government could make? Denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?” Sotomayor asked, according to a transcript of the argument.

Cooper’s response was succinct.

“Your Honor, I cannot. I do not have any — anything to offer you in that regard. I think marriage is —,” Cooper said, at which point Sotomayor cut him off.

“All right. If that, if that is true, then why aren’t they a class? If they’re a class that makes any other discrimination improper, irrational, then why aren’t we treating them as a class for this one thing? Are you saying that the interest of marriage is so much more compelling than any other interest as they could have?” Sotomayor said.

(Page 2 of 2)

Kelly Johnson, chair of the Mayor’s Commission on Human Rights, said the Supreme Court marking sexual orientation as a protected class would help advance the conversation locally.

“It will be very, very meaningful for the Supreme Court to make that determination,” Johnson said.

Even if the court creates a protected class, Johnson said having a local ordinance or policy would help reinforce the decision.

City Attorney Dan Wichmer said the court’s decision could preempt a local ordinance. Wichmer also said that if gay marriage is affirmed by the court it will make it harder to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation generally.

“It undercuts a lot of the arguments that you hear of people who are opposed to it,” Wichmer said.

Statewide, it is legal to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation when it comes to employment or housing, though there are federal rules designed to stop discrimination in housing.

This past week, supporters of a non-discrimination bill rallied in the Missouri Statehouse. The bill, House Bill 615, prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Although the bill was introduced Feb. 14, it has not been assigned to a committee. When asked by reporters about the bill on Thursday, House Speaker Tim Jones, R-Eureka, shot it down.

“I’m not in favor of creating more protected classes and encouraging more litigation on our Missouri employers and job creators,” Jones said.

Johnson said there are typically more opportunities for substantial conversations about non-discrimination on the local level.

“Things move much faster at the municipal level than at the state,” Johnson said.